If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The best joke I've ever heard. While Ubuntu is no longer so Gnome centric (and it will ship with Qt) KDE and its apps will become even more popular. Even now, when you install Ubuntu they're advertising digikam.

So as we speak KDE has more desktops in use than does Gnome? I'd direct you to my response to Awesomeness above to see what I think there.

I do like digikam's feature set and design, so if it's been stabilised then that's a good thing that it's getting exposure by Ubuntu. Though I'd not consider Ubuntu advertising digikam as proof positive that there's more KDE desktops in use than there are Gnome ones.

Comment

So as we speak KDE has more desktops in use than does Gnome? I'd direct you to my response to Awesomeness above to see what I think there.

I do like digikam's feature set and design, so if it's been stabilised then that's a good thing that it's getting exposure by Ubuntu. Though I'd not consider Ubuntu advertising digikam as proof positive that there's more KDE desktops in use than there are Gnome ones.

Gnome is more popular in Europe and North America, but KDE is more popular in South America and Asia. Those locations just don't happen to have nearly as much tech press, and what they do have is often not in English so we don't read it. That doesn't mean there are fewer people there, though.

Most of my discussion here is in response to claims that KDE has no issues.

You are either the worst troll in existence or mentally handicapped: Do you lie on purpose and continue to claim that we said that “KDE” (which is the name of a community and not the name of software) has no issues or do you simply not understand simply only the alleged problems you described are results of either broken dependencies or your imagination?

There are reasons why I chose GNOME nm-applet over KDE Network Management, Firefox over Konqueror/rekonq, and GIMP over Krita. I have no problems admitting problems with KDE software.
However I can not and will not tolerate when some random dude comes out his cave and makes a DE community (no matter if it's KDE, GNOME, or anyone else) responsible for GPU driver bugs and so on.

Notice that you compared Gnome 3 with KDE in order to attribute instability to Gnome 2.

Notice that I'm discussing Gnome 2.

Further, I don't know what state Gnome 3 is in as I don't use it, and is irrelevant to my dislike of KDE 4's instability. There is no level of instability which Gnome 3 can attain that will concern my Gnome 2 desktop.

Surely it's clear that I'm calling into question you bringing up in the discussion the failings of the Gnome 3 desktop as relevant in a discussion about why I consider Gnome 2 > KDE 4. At best it suggests that it's non trivial to produce a stable desktop environment for the Linux platform, but it doesn't address why the Gnome 2 team has been able to do it, and doesn't address why I feel it sensible to move to an alternative desktop that's in easy reach in that it doesn't require a complete platform change in the process of attaining an agreeable level of stability. Moving to Windows would be a much larger undertaking, though one I'd consider more seriously since the release on Windows 7.

GNOME's attitude is to adopt pre-alpha dependencies and stick to them no matter what (PulseAudio, GStreamer).
All GNOME apps that rely on GStreamer crash here at some point. Something about memory access violations.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=119990 shows what happens when GNOME runs out of luck in the driver department. I rather have KDE's approach of modular back-ends. When a driver fails one can simply switch to KWin’s XRender compositing back-end. Broken driver with GNOME Shell: No GS at all.
Great robustness…

The above links to a post about issues the Gnome 3 desktop is having, not Gnome 2. I don't use Gnome 3, at the very least I might install it on a test system and if I find it similar to KDE 4 in terms of stability I'll certainly not bother to use it on my main system.

Lets look at my second post in this thread. It might help you understand why I'm posting in this here at all.

The issue was a bit on the amusing side to me, and a little bit annoying as well.

As a long time KDE user, suffering through the 4.0/4.1 debacle in the hope that a reliable desktop would be finally forthcoming at some point in the future, I waited patiently release after release, only to finally switch to Gnome in the 4.5 time frame. When I did, I was presented with a much more reliable day to day experience, however, compared to KDE, seemingly much less feature rich. After acclimatizing to Gnome, I found it was pretty much on par for the core stuff, and very much more robust.

I had noted to several people the various bugs/crashes/issues I was having with KDE only to be essentially told that it wasn't really KDE's fault at all, and that the real culprit were those pesky distro packagers. No, the bugs were being introduced by evil forces external to the KDE folks, and that I should swap to distro A, then B, then maybe even C, because that crash was the distros fault, and that all my stability answers were lying just around the corner, with that one blessed KDE based distro that did something that all the others didn't do, not crash. I was left to wonder why KDE was so non fault-tolerant as to be rendered unstable by the act of putting it into a Linux software suite that was complete enough to provide a fully functional environment.

I grew weary, and swapped to the "other guys'" desktop in the hope of finding a stable desktop, and indeed that's what I found.

When news of the 4.7RC2 was posted here, I thought to myself now might be a good time to test KDE again to see if it'd finally become stable enough for day to day usage only to run up against the linkage breakage in the official KDE statement. Obviously not a biggy, but perhaps indicative of the level of quality control in general practised by those over in KDE land. It was that simple issue that brought back vivid memories of some of those old crashers reminding me that no, maybe I'm just better off with what I have now.

I don't mention Gnome 2 specifically in that post, though the time lines should suggest it, but in my third post in this thread on page one:

What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.

As someone who wanted KDE to be stable, I mean reeeeaaaalllly wanted it be because I liked its feature set and UI, I finally gave in.

So on the first page, in my third post, I describe exactly the context of the issues. Then following on I continue to refer to the Gnome 2 desktop as my chosen option to avoid the instability that I experienced with the KDE 4 desktop. I later mention the parameters that would likely see me switch to the Microsoft Windows platform if the Gnome 2 desktop was also found to be unsuitable.

Here I address the post suggesting I consider reporting the broken link issue to the KDE guyes before I should feel it legitimate to mention it here. Further I go on to describe why I thought it reasonable that I make the comment I made in the first post.

The issue was a bit on the amusing side to me, and a little bit annoying as well.

As a long time KDE user, suffering through the 4.0/4.1 debacle in the hope that a reliable desktop would be finally forthcoming at some point in the future, I waited patiently release after release, only to finally switch to Gnome in the 4.5 time frame. When I did, I was presented with a much more reliable day to day experience, however, compared to KDE, seemingly much less feature rich. After acclimatizing to Gnome, I found it was pretty much on par for the core stuff, and very much more robust.

Above I begin to get into the context and basis of my frustration with the KDE project. Then I thought I'd explore further some of the background of my previous discussions on the matter of KDE and stability.

I had noted to several people the various bugs/crashes/issues I was having with KDE only to be essentially told that it wasn't really KDE's fault at all, and that the real culprit were those pesky distro packagers. No, the bugs were being introduced by evil forces external to the KDE folks, and that I should swap to distro A, then B, then maybe even C, because that crash was the distros fault, and that all my stability answers were lying just around the corner, with that one blessed KDE based distro that did something that all the others didn't do, not crash. I was left to wonder why KDE was so non fault-tolerant as to be rendered unstable by the act of putting it into a Linux software suite that was complete enough to provide a fully functional environment.

Now looking at the above paragraph from my second post we see that the comments were somewhat prescient in mentioning that it was common to be told that the instability I'd experienced was not the fault of KDE. Further posts in this thread suggest that very thing. Additionally my mention of the concept of the "Golden KDE Distro" meme has also been repeated by other posters in this thread. The "It was the distros fault" type comments have come up more than once here. When I was using KDE as a main desktop openSUSE was considered by many as the "Golden KDE Desktop" but as I've mentioned I've also had issue with it. Others might of as well because openSUSE would seem to be no longer considered the place to be but instead Arch is what you want for a painless experience. One might say "Go Arch or go home "

When news of the 4.7RC2 was posted here, I thought to myself now might be a good time to test KDE again to see if it'd finally become stable enough for day to day usage only to run up against the linkage breakage in the official KDE statement. Obviously not a biggy, but perhaps indicative of the level of quality control in general practised by those over in KDE land. It was that simple issue that brought back vivid memories of some of those old crashers reminding me that no, maybe I'm just better off with what I have now.

The above paragraph wraps up in a nutshell the feeling behind my first post in this thread.

For the most part my responses to others have been inspired by posts calling into question the authenticity of my second post, and also the reasonableness of my first post. The second post is an accurate reflection of my experience of KDE. The first was made out of frustration due to having left the KDE desktop for over a year, and with the healing distance of time feeling in the mood to once again give it another try, only to be met by breakage in the release announcement.

Now you may want to call me a troll, but I'd consider a troll to be someone slamming the alternative to their favorite chosen product which ever that may be at a given time solely out of malice, and for no other reason then to get a rise out of the supporters of that product. My initial comment is a reflection of a genuine feeling of frustration at being met by breakage in something that I want to be not broken.

I have no allegiance to any products, especially a product that I do not make. While being an nVidia user on my Linux desktop since 2002, and with Windows before that, I didn't hesitate to buy an AMD video card when my use case made sense for me to do so. Not for one moment did I reflect on brand allegiance but instead, select based on the requirements of my computing needs at the time. When it comes to desktop environment, previously I had been operating in an environment which could tolerate minor delays in the operation of my computer in which to deal with breakage be it minor or major. When the pressures of my environment changed, so did my choice in desktop taking into account the feature/stability balance. As I've repeating in this thread, I prefer the feature set and general outline of the KDE desktop, my only problem is the level of stability.

If I hated KDE so much I'm not sure I'd of bothered submitting a patch to the KDE help system for the 3.5 series, I'd of just left it broken for others to deal with. Only a minor patch, more interesting would be the length of time I ran a KDE desktop, from 2002 until late 2009ish.

You are either the worst troll in existence or mentally handicapped: Do you lie on purpose and continue to claim that we said that “KDE” (which is the name of a community and not the name of software) has no issues or do you simply not understand simply only the alleged problems you described are results of either broken dependencies or your imagination?

There are reasons why I chose GNOME nm-applet over KDE Network Management, Firefox over Konqueror/rekonq, and GIMP over Krita. I have no problems admitting problems with KDE software.
However I can not and will not tolerate when some random dude comes out his cave and makes a DE community (no matter if it's KDE, GNOME, or anyone else) responsible for GPU driver bugs and so on.

In the past it has been said that KDE is perfect, others have said it's stable and why on earth do I have an issue with KDE.

No, most are likely the result of your vivid imagination because your favorite hobby seems to be to stay in KDE forum thread all day long to bash it. In popular term people like you are called trolls. Normal people don't visit forums about a disliked product and tell all visitors there how much it sucks.

KDE is one of the most popular FOSS communities in existence. If it was so bad as you claim, it wouldn't be as popular.

So you're essentially saying above that I've not been met with the level of instability that I describe, it's simply the result of my vivid imagination, and I again say that's factually false. I have indeed been met with stability issues in line with what I've described. You essentially claim there that I'm here to troll you and others, when I'm doing a completely legitimate thing in responding to the skepticism of those defending the honor of the KDE project. Your last sentence above there again calls into question my assertions where you say "If it was so bad as you claim, it wouldn't be as popular" which sounds an awful lot like you're saying that what I speak of can't possibly be the case as KDE is too popular to have bugs of the nature I describe.

May I direct you to my posts where I describe no environment as perfect, only that I find Gnome 2 be be more perfect than others with respect to stability.
May I also direct you to the posts of others stating that KDE's issues are not those of KDE itself, but those of the underlying infrastructure. My repose to those style comments being essentially "then why can Gnome 2 survive the underlying infrastructure?" Further to be told that Gnome 2's less ambitious in its requirements, and me following that with essentially "I don't care, I need my desktop to work, and so what if Gnome code around bugs in the underlying infrastructure, it means I can use a stable environment," only to be told it's not legitimate to code around lower level bugs, even if that can provide relief from crashes.

It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.

Comment

The above links to a post about issues the Gnome 3 desktop is having, not Gnome 2. I don't use Gnome 3, at the very least I might install it on a test system and if I find it similar to KDE 4 in terms of stability I'll certainly not bother to use it on my main system.

Stop making yourself look like an idiot. Your manipulation in this thread is very obvious. I said before gnome 2 was unstable on my PC and it seems you're ignoring this. As for bugs etc. just go to gnome bugtracker. It was also explained according to some source KDE has less bugs than gnome.

So on the first page, in my third post, I describe exactly the context of the issues. Then following on I continue to refer to the Gnome 2 desktop as my chosen option to avoid the instability that I experienced with the KDE 4 desktop. I later mention the parameters that would likely see me switch to the Microsoft Windows platform if the Gnome 2 desktop was also found to be unsuitable.

It wasn't an only thing you did and you won't escape from your stupid posting now. You were simply trolling and blaming and not just saying your opinion.

Here I address the post suggesting I consider reporting the broken link issue to the KDE guyes before I should feel it legitimate to mention it here. Further I go on to describe why I thought it reasonable that I make the comment I made in the first post.

Nice try troll.

Above I begin to get into the context and basis of my frustration with the KDE project. Then I thought I'd explore further some of the background of my previous discussions on the matter of KDE and stability.

Yep, you were really frustrated, but you're simply trolling, so maybe you're just a frustrated troll?

Now looking at the above paragraph from my second post we see that the comments were somewhat prescient in mentioning that it was common to be told that the instability I'd experienced was not the fault of KDE.

It's one of the possibilities, but it seems you don't accept other possibilities than KDE fault.

Further posts in this thread suggest that very thing. Additionally my mention of the concept of the "Golden KDE Distro" meme has also been repeated by other posters in this thread.

Brain fault. While hardware can be the case or broken drivers then why are you saying about some 'golden distro'?

Now you may want to call me a troll, but I'd consider a troll to be someone slamming the alternative to their favorite chosen product which ever that may be at a given time solely out of malice, and for no other reason then to get a rise out of the supporters of that product. My initial comment is a reflection of a genuine feeling of frustration at being met by breakage in something that I want to be not broken.

It's trolling, because you were blindly repeating same bull and ignoring other possibilities which could be the case.

May I also direct you to the posts of others stating that KDE's issues are not those of KDE itself, but those of the underlying infrastructure.

There's such possibility there were no KDE issues.

My repose to those style comments being essentially "then why can Gnome 2 survive the underlying infrastructure?" Further to be told that Gnome 2's less ambitious in its requirements, and me following that with essentially "I don't care, I need my desktop to work, and so what if Gnome code around bugs in the underlying infrastructure, it means I can use a stable environment," only to be told it's not legitimate to code around lower level bugs, even if that can provide relief from crashes.

Bullshit. Those are only some possibilities and the point is you can't simply say what should take blame (unlike dbus and sometimes drivers, but those cases are proven).

It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.

Conclusions is simple - you were stating problems you've encountered are KDE problems and you didn't want to agree problems can lay somewhere else.

Clearly your reading level is below what I wrote in my post above. While my position should be quite obvious given my first, second and third posts in this thread which are detailed above, you've either been unable to glean what I meant or what I imagine is more the case, are deliberately searching for something that isn't there to suite your own ideology rather that accept what I'm actually saying. You can disagree with my points all you wish, but you with no basis call into question the veracity of my statements regarding KDE with regard to how it performed for me, or rather, didn't.

So let me reiterate

It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.

Why do you consider I was trolling in those threads? In the first one I replied to the topic and in another one I replied to your trolling post. It's not the first time when Gnome camp wants to make things harder for KDE.

Clearly your reading level is below what I wrote in my post above. While my position should be quite obvious given my first, second and third posts in this thread which are detailed above, you've either been unable to glean what I meant or what I imagine is more the case, are deliberately searching for something that isn't there to suite your own ideology rather that accept what I'm actually saying. You can disagree with my points all you wish, but you with no basis call into question the veracity of my statements regarding KDE with regard to how it performed for me, or rather, didn't.

Stop, you're making me laugh. You still don't know what I'm talking about. As far I can see you intentionally posted a flame bit in this thread and you were blindly following you ideology. I read your posts before and I have noticed you're simply a gnome fanboy and your posts are biased (you can say the same about me, but when comes to KDE).

So let me reiterate

It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.

You don't have to explain such things to me. You said: 'majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position' and if it's about: 'my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure' that's fine. However, your entire discussion is about other things as well. Many or even all the problems you've described can be related to some lower level infrastructure or to KDE's worse fault tolerance, but it's really hard to say... What I wanted is you to accept possibility mentioned problems can be no KDE related, but it seems you didn't want to. I have nothing against your personal experience, but I consider such blame is meaningless if there are many presumptive evidences pointing to non KDE faults. I can pick some random bugs from the Gnome bugtracker and I can write about them all the time saying similar things like you did. Or I can write about my experience from the past related to some problems in Gnome 2. There were bug in Gnome 2 which caused data lost, so I could blame it etc. However, I'm aware some bugs are configuration related, so I rarely post a flame bit first:

It was you who have started. You have ignored other people points and didn't want to take into consideration your problems can be related to different things. It seems you didn't want to agree KDE can be rock stable on some configurations, so don't be surprised now. If it's all about your experience then keep in mind it can be different for other people. As far as I remember I wasn't even affected by mentioned dbus bug.

Comment

Why do you consider I was trolling in those threads? In the first one I replied to the topic and in another one I replied to your trolling post. It's not the first time when Gnome camp wants to make things harder for KDE.

Well the responses you made to my post today reflected a contortion of my post and not a good faith response to it for a start. Also the other discussions were certainly ripe for trolling, and you could arguably say they've been subject to some so I assumed there was more fertile ground for trolling there yet you were here so I figured that those other threads had run out of any trolling opportunity they may of had.

Stop, you're making me laugh. You still don't know what I'm talking about. As far I can see you intentionally posted a flame bit in this thread and you were blindly following you ideology. I read your posts before and I have noticed you're simply a gnome fanboy and your posts are biased (you can say the same about me, but when comes to KDE).

And with that you betray that you've not understood what I'm saying there. I would say though that to misunderstand what I wrote in my first post even after I explained the detail of the actual motivation behind it doesn't suggest a good faith reading of what I wrote. The reason for my first post follows it on the first page of this thread, and then further into it.

As far I can see you intentionally posted a flame bit in this thread and you were blindly following you ideology.

Well the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.

I read your posts before and I have noticed you're simply a gnome fanboy and your posts are biased (you can say the same about me, but when comes to KDE).

I'm not biased. I don't make brand allegiances. To do so puts one in a position of difficulty when their chosen brand doesn't perform as required. The reliability of the products of brands can change over time, and as someone who isn't contributing to either Gnome of KDE4 I have no control over what level of breakage they do or don't ship with their code. I'm certainly not going to hitch my ship to anything when I'm in that kind of position. If Gnome2 updates cause breakage of an unsatisfactory nature for me in the future then my options will be to not integrate them, live with them or shift to an alternative subject to what makes the most sense at the time. If I want to use Ubuntu 11.10 which will be shipping Gnome3 and a Unity desktop based on it it'll make sense to perform some tests in the future. Calling me a Gnome fanboy isn't really consistent with the fact that I've used both desktops and that I'm happy to acknowledge any benefits KDE has over Gnome, even now while I use a Gnome desktop. The fact that Gnome has some over KDE as well doesn't evade me as I've discussed in this thread and is why it's what I use for the moment.

You don't have to explain such things to me. You said: 'majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position' and if it's about: 'my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure' that's fine. However, your entire discussion is about other things as well. Many or even all the problems you've described can be related to some lower level infrastructure or to KDE's worse fault tolerance, but it's really hard to say...

Apparently I do need to explain such things to you if you consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, either deliberately or not.

I also disagree that my entire discussion is about other things as well.

Chronologically, it's gone basically like this.

Firstly I mentioned the breakage in the release announcement.

Then I responded that no, they were already made aware that the breakage was there before I posted and then went on to detail why I posted there at all.

Then I responded that no, I wasn't talking about Gnome3, but specifically “What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.”

Then later even more detail on the nature of the instability that I found with KDE4.

All of this before the first page had even been filled. By post 8 in this thread actually.

People have then claimed that the issues were even worse with Gnome2, that the problems I had with KDE4 were a figment of my imagination or due to infrastructure or more specifically, the distro that I may have been using and other such things which I've then responded to as you've read.

I've then been told that my responses to those questioning the veracity of my claims were nothing more than trolling on my behalf, ultimately leading to my statement

Originally posted by mugginz

It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.

You can and will likely will continue to claim that the issues I found were not those of KDE but instead those of the distro/infrastructure/hardware. The diversity of hardware and distro and the period of time over which the usage occurred isn't consistent with mere sole platform issues.

What I wanted is you to accept possibility mentioned problems can be no KDE related, but it seems you didn't want to. I have nothing against your personal experience, but I consider such blame is meaningless if there are many presumptive evidences pointing to non KDE faults. I can pick some random bugs from the Gnome bugtracker and I can write about them all the time saying similar things like you did. Or I can write about my experience from the past related to some problems in Gnome 2. There were bug in Gnome 2 which caused data lost, so I could blame it etc. However, I'm aware some bugs are configuration related, so I rarely post a flame bit first:

As for my personal experience, I've already mentioned that I've been using Linux since 2002 as my full time desktop, across various distros and a wide range of hardware. I noted that when people were attributing KDE4 instability to a particular distro I switched to the promoted as the best KDE one openSUSE at the time. I also noted that the sands had shifted on that (perhaps because it's imperfection had been noted by others) and now it seemed to be Arch and that I found that interesting in itself. If KDE4 couldn't perform as required across different hardware and base distros over the 4.0 to 4.6 time frame I felt that spoke volumes.

It was you who have started. You have ignored other people points and didn't want to take into consideration your problems can be related to different things. It seems you didn't want to agree KDE can be rock stable on some configurations, so don't be surprised now. If it's all about your experience then keep in mind it can be different for other people. As far as I remember I wasn't even affected by mentioned dbus bug.

I didn't agree that KDE4 was as stable or more so than Gnome2. I still don't. I've detailed what I base my view upon. I feel that KDE4 hasn't been in the same ball park as Gnome2 in relation to stability. I mentioned that I felt this could very well be due to the fact that the Gnome2 desktop, at least from a functionality standpoint, was less grandiose than KDE4, but that ultimately when talking about having a dependable desktop, grandiose software which is unreliable is less palatable than software which may be less featureful, but more stable.